Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal

Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth’s climate

Kobe University

Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal. Credit: Kobe University

Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal. Credit: Kobe University

New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an “umbrella effect”.

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.

The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth’s climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory. However, during the last geomagnetic reversal transition, when the amount of galactic cosmic rays increased dramatically, there was also a large increase in cloud cover, so it should be possible to detect the impact of cosmic rays on climate at a higher sensitivity.

In the Chinese Loess Plateau, just south of the Gobi Desert near the border of Mongolia, dust has been transported for 2.6 million years to form loess layers – sediment created by the accumulation of wind-blown silt – that can reach up to 200 meters in thickness. If the wind gets stronger, the coarse particles are carried further, and larger amounts are transported. Focusing on this phenomenon, the research team proposed that winter monsoons became stronger under the umbrella effect of increased cloud cover during the geomagnetic reversal. They investigated changes in particle size and accumulation speed of loess layer dust in two Loess Plateau locations.

In both locations, for about 5000 years during the geomagnetic reversal 780,000 years ago, they discovered evidence of stronger winter monsoons: particles became coarser, and accumulation speeds were up to > 3 times faster. These strong winter monsoons coincide with the period during the geomagnetic reversal when the Earth’s magnetic strength fell to less than ¼, and galactic cosmic rays increased by over 50%. This suggests that the increase in cosmic rays was accompanied by an increase in low-cloud cover, the umbrella effect of the clouds cooled the continent, and Siberian high atmospheric pressure became stronger. Added to other phenomena during the geomagnetic reversal – evidence of an annual average temperature drop of 2-3 degrees Celsius, and an increase in annual temperature ranges from the sediment in Osaka Bay – this new discovery about winter monsoons provides further proof that the climate changes are caused by the cloud umbrella effect.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it”, comments Professor Hyodo. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.”


From EurekAlert!

57 thoughts on “Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal

  1. EurekAlert! published an article which seems to agree with the Svensmark Effect ?!

    I’m baffled !


    • Svensmark Effect is cause of a easily detectable 22 year Hale cycle (solar magnetic field reversals) in the global temperature records, more details here
      However the Earth’s magnetic field variability appear to be the principal factor on the longer term GCR effect; thus it is no surprise that the geomagnetic reversals would be cause of the major changes in the precipitations volumes.

      • Last time NASA got it wrong, so they may have re-evaluated their methods:
        “The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one.” – from your link.
        Agree, as calculated in formula I published more than 15 years ago (7th January 2004)
        if you copy & paste into excel substituting Ax with NASA’s 2025 year of projected SC25 max, you will get 54.2 which is 30% down on the the SC24 max of 79, more details here
        Dr. Svalgaard is 30% in the other direction, 100-110 region in the classic Wolff numbers.

      • “Kitiashvili’s method differs from other prediction tools in terms of the raw material for its forecast. Previously, researchers used the number of sunspots to represent indirectly the activity of the solar magnetic field. The new approach takes advantage of direct observations of magnetic fields emerging on the surface of the Sun – data which has only existed for the last four solar cycles.”

  2. OK. The study report is at:

    However the GCR flux during reversals seems to be inferred by
    a gathering of rather tenuous proxies.

    The Svensmark Effect may be present… or something else
    could have increased dust, debris, and changing ocean levels way
    back then.

    The study is well worth reading and given patient consideration.

    • 10Be evidence for the Matuyama–Brunhes geomagnetic reversal in the EPICA Dome C ice core.

      I find the Kobe study unconvincing. Their figures actually appear to contradict that anything special happened 780 kyr ago when polarity inverted. For most proxies there are bigger changes in winter monsoon at other times so it is unclear why the changes at 780 ka should be due to the polarity reversal.

      The Laschamp excursion happened much closer to us (41.4 ka), and we have better proxies. I have been unable to find, and there are no reports to my knowledge of, any climatic effect from the Laschamp excursion.

    • R.S. Brown

      The Svensmark Effect may be present…

      or something else

      could have increased dust, debris, and changing ocean levels way
      back then.

      Name ONE of that supposed “something else”.

  3. Interesting study, but 5,000 years of anomaly? I previously posted an example where I studied the duration of a magnetic reversal which utilized intrusion cooling rates to the Curie Point and the difference in the magnetic orientation between an intrusion and its genetic off-spring, a magnetite-rich adjacent tactite (Gualcamayo in Argentina). The study produced an estimate of 200 to 300 years to complete the reversal and I believe this is in agreement with some other studies. However, I cannot think of any reason why each reversal should be exactly the same, but 5,000 years?

    • Maybe because reversals do not result in temporary disappearance of geomagnetic field. I believe that poles slowly drift towards the Equator and further on towards geographic poles. If so the magnetic poles designation is clear as soon as both magnetic poles are in the opposite hemispheres, while the effect on the GCRs may be ambiguous for much longer period of time as the magnetic poles linger in the equatorial vicinity.

      • Vuk, I see your point and note that our north pole has taken up wandering and our magnetic field is weakening. However, the orientation of remnant magnetic minerals in a cooling body, are locked into orientation the instant the temperature drops below the Curie Point, which is around 270 deg C under average earth conditions. The tactite in question was within a few degrees of the current magnetic flux line, so it was fixed essentially under pole locations similar to today. I have no idea how much other wandering these rocks underwent and they may have done several loops before stopping for me to measure them (loops in this case not a scientific term).

    • I read somewhere long ago that cosmic rays can cause DNA mutation and cancer, 5,000 years? I don’t think animal or plant life can take the bombardment that long.

      I’m hoping Ron Long is right. Life on earth will do better with less cosmic rays. Even 200 to 300 years of monsoons would be dreary, but 5K? yikes!

  4. during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago,

    So this whole thing is predicated on a totally unsubstantiated claim, complete with no viable mechanism consistent with the evidence, that rather than simply having a weakening gravitation field, that the earth’s gravity somehow magically reverses itself swinging the poles about as some pendulum.

    Filing this under Hollywood science fiction plot-themes.

  5. The Kobe group published a previous article in 2017:

    Kitaba, I., Hyodo, M., Nakagawa, T., Katoh, S., Dettman, D.L. and Sato, H., 2017. Geological support for the Umbrella Effect as a link between geomagnetic field and climate. Scientific reports, 7, p.40682.

    So far it has gone unnoticed. Five citations in Google Scholar, two of them by themselves.

  6. Two points, as the part of the Milky Way circles the centre of this Galaxy
    probably a giant Black Hole, the Planet Earth comes into a section of the
    Universe with either more or less dying stars.

    Thus the amount of “Cosmic Rays” the packets of high energy which
    strike the Earth varies. Couple that with a variation of the Sun’s and the
    Earths magnetic system, then obviously we will experience changes in the
    weather come Climate.

    Second thought, if Earth has a reversal of its magnetic field how will that
    affect the creatures which use the field to navigate ? Do they have
    alternative guidance systems ?


    • Perfect. Just in time for the beginning of SC25 that NASA predicts will be on par with the Dalton Minimum. Brrrr!. I wonder if this is going to end like the Lost Squadron in Greenland.

    • The confusion between weather and climate continues. They will be measuring the weather for one winter – that’s it. If they do this for 30 years they will be able to comment (minimally) on the arctic climate.

    • $158m to sit in a freezer for a year!

      Ah, so they will use icebreakers to rotate the scientists every two months guaranteeing there will be a record minimum sea ice extent next year.

  7. “ions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it”, comments Professor Hyodo. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. ”

    except there is no evidence of increased clouds

  8. The effect of strong ionization is visible in the stratosphere over the polar circle in the period of minimal activity of the solar wind.
    You can see the pressure increase in the north.
    GCR particles are directed to high latitudes by the Earth’s magnetic field.
    Heat spots also appear in the winter polar vortex, which shows the increase in the GCR in the stratosphere.

  9. With various articles speculating the poles may be reversing now, a big takeaway is that the process may last 5,000 years. That alone will keep the meteorologists and climate change debates alive.

  10. I like to think that clouds cause cosmic rays, just to be perverse. But it is horrifying that a crude term like “umbrella effect” could creep into science discourse. It’s much too obvious and explanatory, the idea of something between you and another something is blocking something. We need to mush it up with anomaly baseline statistics and stuff until these allegations of simple blockation disappear. Google Trends on the term “umbrella effect” for the past 5 years shows a clear hockey stick of interest that alarmists will use to weaponize the masses. It seems clear until you view the same data from 2004-present</a where it becomes obvious that until recently we had just been experiencing a 10+ year “pause” in “umbrella effect” fixation.

    After all… no one in their right mind would EVER apply the term “greenhouse” to anything that does not have an actual physical barrier that traps convection… would they? Or would they?

    Intelligent life on Earth is a NASA hoax!

  11. It’s not hard to imagine how increased GCRs reaching the lower atmosphere would have some impact on atmospheric chemistry, specifically from HZE ions, which could act as cloud nuclei themselves.

  12. A novel interpretation of very noisy data. Didn’t the geomagnetic reversal happen in summer that year?

  13. During the Younger Dryas (only 12.9 kya), 3 ft of loess accumulated in the Chesapeake Bay area of Maryland. So not sure how a dust event can be linked to a magnetic-reversal 780 kya — may have just been a D-O event.

  14. Did they rule out the null hypothesis that natural variation was at play? If not I will dismiss this research without further delay.

  15. Whewrher we have cloudiness 0rnot the imprella effect cannot change thetpotal amounr of solar radiation mpimhing the eatth. If mmsoom rains favor one section of the earth, that is not a climate change vecause the ecxess rains is deductewd frj rewfionsnoy favored by thre currentumbrella effewct, As for the ZX-rasys – they ry may or may not be unstigators of monsoons.

  16. The Svensmark Effect is very plausible and is being attacked just like Galileo was attacked for many years.

Comments are closed.